Bar Association expresses deep concern over Granger’s GECOM decision -says he must provide reasons for rejecting 18 nominees.

Source

October 21,2017

The Guyana Bar Association (GBA) today expressed deep concern over President David Granger’s unilateral naming of a Chairman of GECOM and says in keeping with the ruling of Chief Justice Roxane George he must provide reasons for rejecting each of the 18 nominees supplied by the Opposition Leader.

Provision of reasons is the only way in which the constitutional caveat could be applied for the unilateral appointment of a Chairman.

The GBA also took a swipe at the Alliance For Change which had said yesterday that all three lists submitted by the Opposition Leader to Granger failed to meet the constitutional requirement.

The GBA statement adds to the torrent of criticism that has flowed againt Granger’s decision.

The statement by the GBA follows:

STATEMENT BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF GUYANA ON THE APPOINTMENT OF A CHAIRMAN OF THE ELECTIONS COMMISSION

The Bar Council of the Bar Association of Guyana is deeply concerned by the President’s unilateral appointment of the Chairman of the Elections Commission. No President of Guyana from either of the major parties has made a unilateral appointment in more than twenty-five years.

The unilateral appointment of the Chairman can lead to a loss of public confidence in the electoral process which is entirely undesirable having regard to Guyana’s experience in past elections.

The Bar Council expects that, in keeping with the ruling of Chief Justice George in the matter of Marcel Gaskin against the Attorney General, the President will provide reasons for the rejection of the eighteen names submitted to him by the Leader of the Opposition as prospective candidates for appointment.

The Chief Justice ruled that reasons are required to be provided so that it is known why there is a rejection. Her Honour said that this is in order that the President may properly move to apply the proviso to Article 161(2) of the Constitution, which allows the President to appoint persons from the judicial category only.

The President’s power to make a unilateral appointment to the office is limited by the Constitution only to the situation where the Leader of the Opposition fails to submit a list as provided for by the Constitution.

It should be obvious therefore that Guyanese cannot satisfy themselves that there is an objective and lawful basis for the President’s unilateral appointment of Justice James Patterson to that office unless publicly stated reasons for the rejection of the eighteen persons found by the President to be unfit to hold the office of Chairman of the Elections Commission are provided. Only if clear and detailed reasons are provided which show cause why each of the eighteen rejected persons is unacceptable to the President for appointment to the office of Chairman of the Elections Commission would it be possible to establish that the Leader of the Opposition failed to submit a list as provided for by the Constitution.

The ruling of the Chief Justice that reasons are required is part of the law of Guyana until such time as it may be set aside by a higher Court. The Constitution must therefore be read in light of that decision.

The Chief Justice also ruled that “while the President is immune from suit his decisions and actions are not. Thus, whether in the exercise of his discretion there has been compliance with the Constitution is justiciable”.

The Bar Council expects that reasons for rejecting the eighteen persons leading to the unilateral appointment of Justice James Patterson will be provided forthwith to avoid the necessity of further litigation on this issue on its part.

The Bar Council also notes the statement of the Alliance For Change of 20 October that each of the lists supplied to the President fell short of what was required by the Constitution. It regrets that, unlike the Bar Council, the Alliance For Change did not seek to provide assistance to the Chief Justice by providing legal submissions in that regard so that the precise legal reason each of the lists fell short of what was required by the Constitution could be publicly known.

Original Post
Django posted:

Source

October 21,2017

 

STATEMENT BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF GUYANA ON THE APPOINTMENT OF A CHAIRMAN OF THE ELECTIONS COMMISSION

The Bar Council of the Bar Association of Guyana is deeply concerned by the President’s unilateral appointment of the Chairman of the Elections Commission. No President of Guyana from either of the major parties has made a unilateral appointment in more than twenty-five years.

 

Which includes all the time that the PPP were in government.

alena06 posted:

Granger got sound advice or did his homework correctly, the dictator knows no one can do anything about his decision.

Something the AFC should have been able to foresee before they signed that Valentine's Day kiss of death love letter. I have been saying for quite a while now, Ramjattan ain't too bright. He single handedly emasculated his steadily growing party. Now it is irrelevant.

If the PPP can never win another election as many claim, why is Granger afraid of a fair election process. The PPP also acted like they can never lose another election but the difference is that they did not act like they were concerned about a fair election. Burnham's blood runs in Granger's veins and folks like Moses and Ramjattan weren't too bright to know that.

Points to ponder:

[1] Stabroek News Editorial today: "The President calculated correctly if he thought that party would support him now; to their eternal discredit, they have. However, a benefit in the short term will face him with a problem in the longer one, because this is the AFC death knell. The AFC was already moribund as things were, but it has now demonstrated it is no longer an independent party, rather an arm of APNU, or more properly, the PNC."

[2] Dem Boys Seh in KN today: "De thing is that Soulja Bai want a GECOM chairman fuh de local government elections and one fuh de General Elections. That is why dem boys can’t understand all de fuss. Talk half and brace youself. Jagdeo got to prepare more lists."

alena06 posted:

Granger got sound advice or did his homework correctly, the dictator knows no one can do anything about his decision.

The advisor was Patterson.  He said, "Pick me. Pick me."  And the madman pick am.  Patterson is a paid advisor to Basil Williams.  Conflict of interest.

ksazma posted:

 The PPP also acted like they can never lose another election but the difference is that they did not act like they were concerned about a fair election. 

The 2015 election was held under a PPP administration.  The result is that the PPP lost.  The PPP has yet to accept the results of this election.

 

caribny posted:
ksazma posted:

 The PPP also acted like they can never lose another election but the difference is that they did not act like they were concerned about a fair election. 

The 2015 election was held under a PPP administration.  The result is that the PPP lost.  The PPP has yet to accept the results of this election.

 

Do I have to reiterate the same thing to you on every thread. As much as you are hoping for a different answer it will not change if you ask it on another thread. The results should have been recounted according to proper protocol. If GECOM is supposed to be impartial, then there should be no expectation by the PPP that GECOM would either rig the election to benefit or hurt them. You continuously asking this question indicates that it is your expectation that GECOM is supposed to do that which benefits the government. Perhaps share your expectation explaining what he appointed an 84 years old PNC dinosaur to chair GECOM.

ksazma posted:
caribny posted:
ksazma posted:

 The PPP also acted like they can never lose another election but the difference is that they did not act like they were concerned about a fair election. 

The 2015 election was held under a PPP administration.  The result is that the PPP lost.  The PPP has yet to accept the results of this election.

 

Do I have to reiterate the same thing to you on every thread. 

And I will reject your racist answer every time that you do.

You know full fking well that had the PPP won in 2015 and APNU/AFC made those demands you would be loudly screaming that the results took 5 days and that they need to accept the results.

Your opinions are forged by your "ahbe pan tap" mentality.

So you repeat your nonsense and I will confront it.

caribny posted:
ksazma posted:
caribny posted:
ksazma posted:

 The PPP also acted like they can never lose another election but the difference is that they did not act like they were concerned about a fair election. 

The 2015 election was held under a PPP administration.  The result is that the PPP lost.  The PPP has yet to accept the results of this election.

 

Do I have to reiterate the same thing to you on every thread. 

And I will reject your racist answer every time that you do.

You know full fking well that had the PPP won in 2015 and APNU/AFC made those demands you would be loudly screaming that the results took 5 days and that they need to accept the results.

Your opinions are forged by your "ahbe pan tap" mentality.

So you repeat your nonsense and I will confront it.

You actually saw a racial component to my answer? Bai, you need a break from GNI because you are truly losing it. 

Just so you can cool off a bit, you should bring up the threads following the 2011 elections where I bemoaned a one party wins all reality in Guyana. Instead of dancing in the streets and celebrating another PPP victory, I wished for a representative government in Guyana similar to what we have in the US. Maybe you would find that offensive too since it seems you don't care for shared power and responsibilities. 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×
×